No! Of course Earth isn’t flat why would you even open the link and start reading this post!?

However, I thought it would be fun today if we could look into the Flat Earth Theory and see what ‘flat earthers’ are arguing.

We shall start this post by introducing the Flat Earth Theory and highlighting the main points of argument, before talking about NASA and more precisely the rubbish that comes out of NASA’s mouth. Let me just get this out there… I do generally think NASA is full of shit. I think at least some photos are fake and at least some videos are fake. I am sceptical of NASA missions and the moon landings, but my scepticism of NASA and space exploration in general does not make me more inclined to think that the Earth is flat. So let’s talk about NASA and then we’ll get on to the real hardcore flat earth stuff- mainly discussing the horizon, the sun, the moon and stars, and after that you may be scratching your head thinking “wow maybe it is true! Maybe Earth is actually flat”. And then I will bring you back to reality by explaining how the earth is round, again by primarily using the horizon, the sun, the moon and the stars, which is where you’ll be thinking “wow can’t believe I actually thought Earth might be flat”.

The UN logo is a flat Earth

So, you might think the Flat Earth Theory has overtime lost ground due to an ongoing expansion into the realms of science and technology. But more people today believe in a flat Earth than ever before. You also might assume that the Flat Earth Theory derives from religion and the bible, however philosophers were debating the flat Earth/round Earth argument in ancient times long before Christianity existed, and there are verses in the bible which imply that the Earth is spherical.

The founder of modern-day Flat Earth Theory is arguably Samuel Rowbotham who we shall talk about more shortly, however Wilber Glen Voliva was the first advocate of modern day Flat Earth Theory; him being a devout Christian who governed the community of Zion, Illinois at the start of the 20th century; teaching the flat Earth doctrine through local Catholic schools. Voliva famously offered anyone $5000 who could prove that the Earth was a globe, and the main proponent of his argument was the fact that the Sun was only 3000 miles from the Earth’s surface, rather than the 92 million miles we have been taught to believe.

A billboard erected by Wilber Glen Voliva in Zion, Illinois

The Fact that flat-earthers believe that Earth is a flat disc means that there isn’t a north and south pole, therefore they think that everything on Earth surrounds the arctic circle and Antarctica is a giant ice ring which surrounds Earth.

The ‘ring of Antarctica’ is also in fact a giant ice wall 150 feet high, which of course stops people falling off the edge of Earth. The Antarctic ice wall is guarded to stop people exploring the area- by whom is up for debate. Some Flat-earthers say NASA guard the ice wall, some say its guarded by joint trans-national government agencies. The only consensus regarding the ice wall is the fact that all the world governments know about the Antarctic ice wall and they work together to protect it from ordinary citizens.

The Flat Earth Theory also involves a dome shape over the Earth in which the Sun and Moon are inside rotating within the dome. There is argument as to how far away the dome actually is from the surface of the Earth, because let’s not forget that if the Sun really is 3000 miles like Wilber Glen Voliva says, then the dome that covers our flat earth must be further away than that, although Flat-earthers do try and provide evidence of a dome covering the earth which would suggest that the dome is much closer than that and the sun and moon are in fact outside the dome, as seen with the video below:

The Flat Earth Dome

NASA
The Dome Theory brings us on to NASA and the potential lies of NASA, because obviously if there really was a dome covering a flat Earth then Earth would be a closed system and space exploration would be impossible. Let me just say I think that the first ever moon landing with Neil Armstrong was more likely to be fake than real. But let’s not get into that that’s a whole other conspiracy theory altogether. We’ll start off with fake images.

Image taken from the International Space Station in 2014. Conveniently there are no clouds Its the size of America in 2012 that gets me

Maybe I am being a bit gullible maybe there is genuine scientific reason for the differences in the NASA images of Earth. I suppose the type of camera and photography used will definitely have varied over the eight photographs. Is the distance of the camera from Earth the same in all eight of those photographs shown above the same? Does an increase in pollution over time contribute to changing colours? I’m starting to sound like I’m debating myself now but I still stand by my opinion; all the images of Earth above look fake and someone needs to prove me wrong…

However, you can’t deny that these are fake…

The image of Pluto July 8th, 2015 appears to show the outline of Disney cartoon character…Pluto! Its almost as if NASA are taking the piss

Yes I apologize I know I have gone way off track this is supposed to be about the Flat Earth Theory. I just get too excited when it comes to conspiracy theories.

However, the reason I talk about ‘NASA lies’ in this post is because Flat-earthers manipulate the bullshit given to us by NASA and use it to back up their theory of flat Earth. Fortunately people like me who have sense can see past that and be right in the middle… just because I generally believe NASA is fake and I do not trust them does not mean I believe in a flat Earth.

Flat Earth- Horizon

So, when it comes to flat Earth, Flat-earthers believe that the horizon is flat and our planet has no curvature. What about boats that go over the horizon at sea you might say? Well Flat-earthers argue that boats do not go over the horizon they just in fact move so far away that they can no longer be seen with the naked eye (so if I buy a powerful enough telescope I will be able to see Mount Everest?).

A picture taken on zoom of a ship that had appeared to have gone over the Horizon with the naked eye

As mentioned in the introduction, Samuel Rowbotham was the first advocate of Flat Earth Theory and he conducted the first ever Bedford Level Experiment; a test carried out along a 6 mile stretch of the Old Bedford River in Cambridgeshire. Rowbotham first did this in 1838, however the test has been carried out many times since on the 6 mile stretch of the Old Bedford River with differing results.

Old Bedford River, Cambridgeshire

Below is a video of a recent Bedford Level Experiment carried out by modern day Flat-earthers in 2016.

When it comes to air travel, flat earthers believe that if the Earth was a sphere, pilots would have to dip the nose of their aeroplanes at least every 5 minutes to keep in line with the Earth’s curvature. Last year a well-known nutcase amongst the flat Earth community, D. Marble, had one of his many videos go viral after he took a spirit level on a plane and carried out his own little experiment. Bless him.

As for flight paths, well Flat Earth Theory states that the flight paths aeroplanes take prove that Earth is not a globe. If you look at Google Earth, it does seem odd that the Johannesburg-Perth flight refuels at Dubai, the Johannesburg-Santiago flight refuels at Senegal and the Santiago-Sydney flight refuel in L.A.

Stars and Satellites

The Flat Earth Theory in all fairness hardly has anything to say with regards to stars, the endless hours I have spent watching flat Earth videos on YouTube primarily focus on the horizon and also the sun and the moon, although stars are thought to be a mere 3100 miles above the Earth’s surface, rather than the assumed 310,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, miles distance from Earth we are taught to believe. I did find one page on the Flat Earth Society’s * website claiming that stars rotate around Earth’s central point (North Pole) like the Sun and Moon- https://wiki.tfes.org/Stars
Flat-earthers have more to say with regards to satellites however, because they think satellites are a hoax. There are supposedly nearly 5000 satellites orbiting the Earth, most of which are dead but some used mainly for communicational purposes. Flat-earthers argue that all the functions in which satellites fulfil are in fact carried out by various stations on ground level. “Why do these 5000 satellites never crash into each other?” is one of the frequent questions we hear along with “How come we never see satellites when looking at the sky with telescopes?”

Sun and Moon

Flat Earth Theory involves the Sun and Moon circling on the imaginary red line above Earth

With the Sun and Moon supposedly only being 3000 miles above ‘our flat Earth’ they are both allowed to do one full rotation above the Earth in a 24 hour period.

We have come to understand with our spherical Earth that the Sun’s distance from Earth can vary slightly pending on the Globe’s tilt, which is why we have seasons. So how do Flat-earthers explain seasons? Well one popular theory is that the Sun circles above the Earth closer to the centre in Summer before gradually spiralling outwards for 6 months so that the Sun circles above Earth closer to the Antarctic ice ring, then the ‘outward spiralling’ is reversed for the next 6 months after that. This would also explain why seasons are opposite in the Southern Hemisphere to the Northern Hemisphere and also the Equinox.
As for the moon, Flat-earthers believe that the fact that we only ever see one side of the moon backs up their theory as well as cool moonlight. Experiments carried out by Flat-earthers (videos on YouTube) find that objects that lie in moonlight are actually cooler than objects lying in the shade, and because moonlight is supposedly a reflection of sunlight on the moon then surely objects on Earth in moonlight would be warmer than in the shade. There is differentiation amongst Flat-earthers about what the Moon actually is. Some say it is a flat disc in the sky, some say it is a light in the sky shining from Earth, and some say it is a hologram.

Spherical Earth- Horizon

Now that we have gone through the key arguments of Flat Earth Theory we shall now go through the key counter-arguments of spherical Earth and likewise we shall start with the horizon. First of all, I cannot exaggerate to you enough how big Earth actually is. This means that the horizon will always look flat where ever you are! 40,000 feet high is how high you need to be to even start to see the Earth’s curve, so even on a commercial airline which generally flies at 36,000 feet the horizon will always look flat. This is not because Earth IS flat, this is because Earth is bloody massive.

Horizon still looking pretty flat from 30,000 feet

It is important when talking about the horizon to talk about mirage effects because this is something the Flat Earth Theory blatantly ignores. When cold air is near water it can create a mirage because temperature differences will cause light to bend. Flat-earthers unfortunately do not realise this, or like I said they blatantly ignore, because one of their big arguments is that certain skylines can be seen over water which should not be able to be seen, for example the Chicago Skyline over Lake Michigan. This obviously means to them that Earth is flat.

Stars and Satellites

The opposite of what you would call the Flat Earth Model (Geocentric Model) is the Heliocentric Model and the Heliocentric Model is taught to us in education as being scientific fact. It is the idea that every planet in our solar system orbits around the sun, rather than the Geocentric Model where every planet as well as the sun and other stars outside of our supposed ‘solar system’ orbit around Earth. One advantage the Heliocentric Model has over the Geocentric Model is that future events can be predicted, such as eclipses.

Only the Heliocentric Model can explain why different stars can be seen from both the Northern and Southern Hemisphere. Despite the Earth spinning on its tilt over a 24 hour period and the Earth orbiting 1 full rotation around the Sun over a year period, the North Pole and the South Pole remain stationary in the same position all the time. This means that the big dipper for example can only be seen from the Northern Hemisphere, and that Sagittarius can only be seen from the Southern Hemisphere.

This graphic shows why people on opposite sides of the Globe see different stars

As for satellites, well the simple fact that 5000 satellites orbit the Earth is proof that Earth is a sphere. That is what NASA say which is why I’m personally a bit sceptical. I’m not saying satellites are a myth, but I need more convincing. However let’s just assume that there is no myth, therefore satellites in the sky prove that Earth is a globe.

Sun and Moon
When it comes to the Sun, Flat-earthers argue that the sun does not rise and set over the horizon, it merely moves too far away out of distance when supposedly “setting” so that people lose sight of the Sun as it circles above the Earth, which thus gives us night time. In my opinion this is the worst flat Earth argument and the least persuasive to anyone flirting with the flat Earth idea. If it was true that the Sun simply moved in and out of sight as it circled above the Earth, then we would see the Sun get distinctly bigger and smaller depending on what time of day it was. When night time came and the Sun set.. no sorry I mean when night time came and the Sun moved too far away out of our distance, surely the sun would get smaller and smaller until there was a vanishing point? However in reality the Sun always stays the same size morning until night. This also means that by flat Earth logic, we would be able to see the Sun with a telescope at night time.

The Sun does not shrink to a vanishing point on the Horizon

As for the moon, there are disputes amongst the flat Earth community as to what the Moon actually is, but in the common-sense community everyone agrees that the moon is spherical. For the Flat-earthers who think that the Moon is a flat disc, well they are wrong because no matter where you are on Earth or no matter where the Moon is in orbit, the Moon always looks circular. If the Moon was a flat disc then yes it would also be circular when directly above your head, but as it moved away during its rotation above our flat Earth it would become more and more elliptical. Fake news. The Moon would also shrink to a vanishing point over the horizon, just like the Sun, if it rotated above ‘our flat Earth’.

If you look close at the Moon’s craters towards the edge you will see that they are elliptical (oval shaped) meaning that they are on the edge of a curved sphere

As for the Flat-earthers who believe that the Moon gives off its own light, well the Moon’s craters debunk that argument. If you zoom in on the Moon with a telescope you will see that there are shadows in the Moon’s craters, meaning that light is coming from an external source. Probably the Sun.

Enter a caption

The reason we only ever see the same side of the moon is because the Moon rotates at the same rate as it orbits the Earth. Also because of the fact that the moon is so far away. If the Moon was as close to Earth as Flat-earthers believe; just a few thousand miles away, then people in Argentina and Canada for example; which are two countries in the same time zone, would see the Moon at the same time but see completely different sides to the Moon. That is simply not the case.

You can see on this distance-scale why everyone only ever sees one side of the Moon

Finally, when talking about both the Sun and the Moon, Flat-earthers fail to explain what force keeps the Sun and the Moon moving in a circular rotation above ‘our flat Earth’. Common-sensers know what force keeps the Earth orbiting around the Sun and what force keeps the Moon orbiting around Earth, and that force ladies and gentlemen is what you call gravity!

Conclusion
So I’ve made it quite clear that I do not believe in the Flat Earth Theory, however that does not mean that I think that the Flat Earth Theory is stupid or that individual Flat-earthers are dumb (even though D. Marble took a spirit level on a 2 hour plane journey believing that it proved the Earth to be flat!). I have only covered a small proportion of the flat Earth-round Earth debate, so if you have found this post interesting you should go divulge into the debate furthermore; there is so many videos to watch and material to read, and I think the Flat Earth Theory does sometimes propose a convincing argument which is why I do not dismiss it as being stupid.

Most of the Flat-earther arguments are later debunked, but not all of them. One clever analogy I have come across for the flat Earth-round Earth debate is that of a crossword puzzle, because sometimes answers from both sides of the argument are valid and they cross over each other. However the fact is, if Earth really was flat there would have to be so many people lying to us right now it would be impossible to keep secret- not just world government officials but also pilots and scientists. Although remember, no matter how little you believe in a flat Earth or no matter how stupid you think the Flat Earth Theory is, don’t believe everything NASA is telling you.

*There is much scepticism amongst the flat Earth community regarding Flat Earth Society and most Flat-earthers appear to disagree with what the FES say, for example; the fact that ‘our flat Earth’ is constantly rising upwards which explains ‘the myth of gravity’. Some Flat-earthers believe that the FES was created by NASA or maybe even the Illuminati to purposely make the Flat Earth Theory look stupid

The freedom of the press should be appreciated throughout the West because it is part of Western democracy and free speech. With a free press there will always be media bias, however the bias the mainstream media have shown when reporting on Donald Trump’s presidential actions have reached a level beyond ridiculousness which can only result in sincere counter-productivity to the democracy of American people.

This week I switched on the news and saw Donald Trump shaking hands with Vladimir Putin at their summit in Helsinki and my immediate reaction was along the lines of “wow what a moment in history, two leaders of staunch rival nation-states; two countries that have hated one another ever since WW2, making friends making allies… what does this mean for the future opportunities of world peace (excited emoji face inserted here)”

Then I saw newspaper headlines from around the world…

The Wall Street Journal over the pond reported on how the Trump-Putin summit was a “national embarrassment” to America and how Trump had “projected weakness” The Daily Mirror here in Britain reported on how Trump ‘backed down’ to Putin and how Trump was in general.. Putin’s bitch.

Over in Finland the Kauppalehti mocked the gifts that were exchanged between the two Presidents

Coward, traitor, and non-patriotic are the words used to describe Trump in his meeting with Vladimir Putin (non-patriotic? seriously? It was the American patriots who voted Trump into power!). All this because Trump and Putin had a healthy and friendly summit. Its as if critics from the press want America to go to war with Russia rather than be at peace!

Trump and Putin are trying to start off fresh relations between the two countries, relations that have previously involved dangerous high tension ever since former KGB agent Vladimir Putin first came to power. Imagine this; a future bi-polar world order dominated by two nuclear ALLIES of America and Russia, opposite to the bi-polar world order experienced during the Cold War.

Maybe its true that Putin interfered in the American elections, although Putin staunchly denies it. But even if so, was Trump meant to call Putin a liar on global TV? That would have ended any chance of a future relationship between America and Russia, and that would have sufficed even harsher criticism for Trump from the mainstream media.

Trump outlined examples of how America and Russia could work together, for instance on tackling terrorism and sharing future anti-terror information, with Russia having been repeatedly attacked by Islamic extremists for the previous two decades. In 2004 Islamists held 1000 people hostage at a school in North Caucasas, Russia, resulting in more than 300 people dead 186 of which were school children. In 2010, 40 people were killed by suicide bombers on the Moscow underground system, as were on the St Petersburg underground system last year.

If only the mainstream media/Western Islamic sympathisers put more effort into reporting actual news stories like these instead of trying to undermine the democratic American vote.

When the mainstream media reported on the Trump-Putin summit with their inherent determination at smearing Donald Trump, they failed to notice the future opportunities that an American-Russian alliance could bring. Russia could have a major influence on the abandonment of North Korea’s nuclear weapon programme, with Russia being important on the basis of North Korea’s economic survival, but yet having nothing to gain from North Korea’s nuclear weapons.

Trump could also acquire Putin’s help in withdrawing American troops from Syria, as well as Putin potentially being able to convince Iran to withdraw their troops. The exchange would result in Bashar Al Assad remaining in power of Syria, which is more than fair seen as the Syrian people overwhelmingly democratically elected Assad.

The only reason America initially wanted Assad overthrown was to takeover Russia’s pipeline. Fortunately Donald Trump has less interests in American imperialism. Be grateful that Hillary Clinton didn’t win the American election because if she had, she would have carried on her Husband’s legacy and took over Russia’s pipeline, inevitably causing the Russian economy to collapse. Never mind unprecedented levels of tension between America and Russia in another Cold War, Hillary Clinton as American President would mean a nuclear war

Media bias has always been a part of democratic politics with media outlets; newspapers in particular, always aligning to certain political parties or certain sides of the political spectrum. However since Donald Trump became President Media bias has reached a whole new level with constant criticism of every policy Trump carries out and constant smearing by the American press, headed of course by CNN. Fake news. It is not only in America, all British news channels and the vast majority of British newspapers are anti-Trump and now Sky TV no longer have any right-wing news channels on their package after dropping Fox News. So much for democracy.

This news headline is obviously fake and not real, but the joke reflects CNN’s continuous efforts at smearing Donald Trump

In Britain last week thousands of people were out on the streets of London protesting at the arrival of Donald Trump in Britain ahead of a summit with Theresa May. The effort the press went into to cover the story of these anti-Trump protesters was ‘over the top’ to say the least. Live coverage of the protests all day long. Funny how the news channels couldn’t do the same when similar numbers of people from Football Lads Alliance marched in protest of Islamic Extremism, also in London. Not even 30 seconds of coverage on the news for the FLA. It was exactly the same with the Free Tommy Robinson protests THE DAY AFTER the anti-Trump protests, also in London.

As for the anti-Trump protests in London last week, where were they when Saudi Arabian leader Mohammed Bin Salman visited Great Britain this year, a man who governs a regime where women aren’t allowed to leave their house without a male companion and where woman are tortured in prison for removing their hijabs? Where were they when Turkey’s leader Recep Tayyip Erdogan visited Britain in May, a man who imprisons journalists for writing news reports criticising his opinion? Where were they when Chinese leader Xi Jinping visited the UK recently, a man who wants to make himself ‘dictator for life’ by eliminating any future democratic elections in China?

I’ll tell you where they were- they were at home not giving a shit. The only reason these protesters were in London last week was because they’ve jumped on the anti-Trump bandwagon, a bandwagon which was made fashionable by hypocrite political commentator Owen Jones, hypocrite Mayor of London Sadiq Khan, and of course the hypocrite mainstream media.

Just look at the result of Donald Trump’s approach to the Korean conflict. Controversial at times yes of course, but look whats happening now; North Korea are set to abandon their nuclear weapons programme, and North and South Korea are going through the process of peace talks for the first time in the history of modern civilisation! Worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize for Donald Trump in my opinion. Before you start laughing, I bet if it was the exact same situation regarding the Korean peace talks 5 years ago with Obama as American President he would have won a Nobel Peace Prize. Yes I know he’s already won one I can’t remember what for though. Because he is black? It surely wasn’t because of the thousands of innocent middle-eastern civilians Obama killed with drone attacks? No? Probably because he is black.

I know that through reading this article it may seem that I am against the freedom of the press. Well I am not. I am not a communist and I am not a fascist, I believe that free press and free speech are both important aspects of a healthy democracy. Even media bias is good, people will favour certain media outlets based on their own political opinions. However I feel that since Donald Trump became President, media bias is no longer restricted to different certain media outlets, whether they be newspapers or news channels. It is instead bias seen throughout the mainstream media and the general press. This needs to change because as the way things are, the free press in which the mainstream media has always embraced is starting to look like the press seen within an authoritarian state-ruled society. Propaganda corrupting people’s political knowledge.

Throughout the world right now Muslims are observing Ramadan, starting last week on the 17th up until next month in June on the 14th. Ramadan is the 9th month in the Islamic calendar commemorating the revelation of the Qur’an from Allah to Prophet Muhammad, being one of the five pillars of Islam. During Ramadan Muslims are required to refrain from eating, drinking liquids, smoking and sexual relations during the daylight hours, typically 7am-7pm.

Those are the basics of what Ramadan involves for Muslims, and from the requirements of Ramadan it is impossible to see any factor that could possibly influence violence of any sort that could result in Islamic extremism or terrorism. Islamists don’t commit terror attacks because they’re hungry or horny.

However all you have to do is look at the statistics for yourselves. Lasts years Ramadan coincided with 8 people killed in the London Bridge terror attack as well as 17 killed at an ice cream shop in Baghdad, with ISIS claiming over 300 attacks during Ramadan last year in 12 different countries. The year before was even more deadly because more than 200 people were killed in a Baghdad suicide bomb attack during the 2016 Ramadan, and ISIS also claimed the responsibility for over 400 deadly attacks in 16 different countries during Ramadan that year.

Also, today as I write this (22nd May) marks the 5 year anniversary of the beheading and murder of Lee Rigby, and also the 1 year anniversary of the Manchester terrorist attack.

Now that the 22nd April has officially been made Stephen Lawrence day, surely the 22nd May can be made Lee Rigby dayChildren were the target at the cowardly Manchester suicide bomb attack

The reason there is seen to be more Islamic terror attacks during the month of Ramadan is in fact because Ramadan is not only a month observed by Muslims to commemorate the revelation of the Qur’an to Prophet Muhammad, it is also known as “the holy month of Jihad”.

In the early days of Islam, key conflicts were won by Prophet Muhammad and his descending Caliphs, most notably the Battle of Badr (year 624), but also the conquest of Mecca (year 630), the siege of Constantinople (year 675), the notorious invasion of Spain (year 714) and Tarik Ibn Zayed’s resulting conquest (year 715), the victory of Salahuddin against invading crusaders (year 1206), and Mamluk’s victory in the Battle of Ain Jiloot (year 1272).

The Battle of Badr occurred once Prophet Muhammad and his jihad followers returned to Mecca from Medina. Muhammad had originally left Mecca for Medina trying to preach his new spiritual religion of Islam in an attempt to gain followers. With little success in doing so, Medina saw Muhammad revolt his new religion into the ‘political ideology of Islam’; using jihad and violence as a method of converting people in Medina to Islam. This allowed Muhammad and his Muslims to return to Mecca and defeat the Quraish in the Battle of Badr, essentially making Prophet Muhammad the King of Arabia.

Jihadists today often give reference to the Muslim victory in the Battle of Badr as the turning point in history in which Islam was allowed to prosper and begin to take control of Arabia, despite Muslims in that battle being numerically outnumbered. Compare it to the battle of Agincourt in which the English defeated the French despite being numerically outnumbered, and thus allowing English dominance in Western Europe.

Throughout the history of Islam, Islamic victories in battle have tended to occur during Ramadan. This is because Muslims are taught to be courageous and fearless during Ramadan, and bravery during Ramadan in Arabic conflicts has won Muslims many conflicts whilst being ‘the underdogs’, which today are reflected on with pride and admiration by Muslim people.

Of course it is not brave or courageous for Muslim extremists to commit terrorism, it is nothing short of cowardly. However the Muslim extremists see themselves as being brave by committing terror, and they believe that their death through jihad will see them rewarded in the afterlife by Allah.

“So let those fight in the cause of Allah who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter. And he who fights in the cause of Allah and is killed or achieves victory- We will bestow upon him a great reward” (Qur’an, chapter 4, verse 74)

The above verse taken from my copy of the Qur’an may explain why Islamists believe that their death in jihad will bring them reward from Allah in the afterlife; the gardens of paradise.

So from now on just remember that Ramadan isn’t all about fasting, refraining from smoking and sexual relations, or as you might read in the Independent… “love and generosity” (do me a favour). Ramadan is also a month of violence. Ramadan is a month of remembrance and reflection regarding the wars that Muslims have won throughout the history of Islam. Ramadan is a month where Muslims are ‘brave’ and fight. Ramadan is a month where Islamists commit terror.

The Syrian war is unique and remarkably bizarre in the fact that the countries and religious movements involved are fighting each other, but yet are supporting one another at the same time. They are enemies and yet share even greater enemies.

America and its Western allies want to overthrow the Syrian Shia government and the best way to do this would be with support from Sunni military groups. i.e. the Syrian Rebels: the Free Syrian Army, ISIS and Al-Nusra. This is because Sunnis and Shias do not like each other they haven’t done so since Islam was formed 1400 years ago. Syria is fighting these Islamist terror groups backed by Russia and Iran. America is also fighting these Islamist terror groups but America supports the Syrian rebels. This means that America is in Syria fighting ISIS, but America also wants ISIS to win because ISIS are also fighting the Syrian government, and America wants the Syrian government to lose.

How confused are you right now!

America wants to imperialise Syria to construct a pipeline which would thus allow America to sell gas to Europe and take away the gas market from Russia. This would essentially cripple Russia’s economy because 80% of Europe’s gas is currently provided by Russia. Syria wants its friend Russia to construct a different pipeline through its territory which would thus maintain European dependence on Russian gas.

Where does religion come into this pipeline conflict?

Well, Sunni Islamist groups are bad, Shia governments not as much so, but Syria’s Shia government needs to be defeated in order to enhance America’s economic power, and the best way for Syria’s Shia government to be defeated is with the support of Sunni militants.

But America and its Western allies still need to be seen opposing Sunni militants of course.

As for the chemical attacks in Syria last week, I think it could be every possibility that Assad DID NOT use chemical weapons and nerve agents on his own people, the very same people whom 89% of voted Assad into power.

I think the chemical weapons would have been more likely to have been used by Syrian rebels, after all, the Syrian rebels are partly made up of ISIS and ISIS have used the banned chemical weapon ‘mustard gas’ before when attacking Kurdish fighters.

This means that blaming Assad for the use of chemical weapons could simply be a set up by America and its friend/enemy ISIS in order to make Assad and his government look bad, and justify military action against his ‘regime’.

I might come across as a conspiracy theorist (that’s because I am), but ask yourself, was it definitely Russia who shot down the Air Malaysia flight back in 2014 or could it have been a joint American-Ukrainian secret operation in order to make Russia look bad. The same goes for the nerve agents used on the Russian man and his daughter in Salisbury, Great Britain last month, and of course the previous chemical attacks in Syria that were assumed to have been carried out by the Assad ‘regime’.

The Syrian rebels have embraced Islamism and Islamic fundamentalism. Surely the rebels are more likely to use chemical weapons. Investigations need to be made properly.

Why would Assad launch a chemical attack on civilians when the end of the war is nigh? ISIS have retreated and Al-Nusra have been defeated, and Donald Trump wants to withdraw American troops from Syria. Assad is winning so why would he decide now to gas his people?

There is also wonder if a chemical attack even happened at all? Locals have said that it didn’t, and in the video and photographs of the supposed chemical attack there is evidence that the scenarios in which ‘victims’ are being treated by medics are staged.

This video from “rebels’” held area in Syria is one of the reasons why you don’t rush into war based on YouTube videos pic.twitter.com/OB2aGXQP4y

All you need to know is that the Syrian war is a war on proposed pipelines. America needs to take control of Syrian territory, and in order to do this it has orchestrated a rebellion against Assad’s government along with its allies in Europe and the Middle-East. This rebellion has involved ISIS and Al-Nusra, the types of people who Western liberal democracies are supposed to oppose.

This essentially means that the reason half a million people have died in a war is because America wants to colonise Syria in order to construct a pipeline and sell gas to Europe. As for the chemical attacks, it will be unlikely to ever know for certain who used the chemical weapons, that’s if they were used at all, meaning that you can not assume it was Assad who used them just because that’s what Western media are telling you so.

The Football Lads Alliance started out as a response to the Islamic terror attacks which we saw in Manchester and London last year; a small number of like minded rival football fans angry at the limited response from the government and the political elite following those terror atrocities.

Since the movement started in the summer last year, the FLA has grown massively in numbers and two marches have already taken place in London, with a further march being planned in Birmingham next month. What I want to discuss in this article is the media’s perception of the FLA; the extent of how much the media has in fact covered the two previous marches, and what image of the FLA the press has tried to portray.

After the first march in which there were 10,000 people, nobody in the press bothered to cover the story. The only people who knew of the march were members of the FLA page on Facebook, which at a guess was maybe 50,000 people. The general population had no idea that 10,000 people marched through their capital city that day, never mind what they were marching for. The BBC didn’t cover the 10,000 FLA marchers, but that very same day the BBC had time to cover the story of a 1000 feminist protesters… in Germany!

After the second FLA march, the press started to take an interest, albeit mainly the minor media outlets who no one takes seriously anyway. The reports from the press suggested that the FLA were far-right racists, which in fact was just an attempt from the press to keep the liberal left and the politically correct at piece of mind. Despite not being part of the two previous FLA marches, I myself have been part of the FLA Facebook group right from the very start and I have seen the leader and founder of the FLA, John Meighan, post the same messages throughout; “no racism and no violence”.

Thousands of rival football fans unite in London

The FLA is a movement that welcomes anyone from any background providing they are opposed to terrorism and extremism, something which has unfortunately become part and parcel of living in a city (I’m sure I’ve heard someone say that before???).

I thought it would be useful to ask John Meighan a few questions and note down the answers. I already knew what his answers to my questions were going to be before I had even asked them, but I asked him anyway because in my opinion, this is how a democratic free press should work. Talk to the primary source of the topic that will be covered in order to get the most valid report, whilst maintaining no bias with complete neutrality of opinion. This will thus allow readers to form their own fair opinion.

J Mitchell- What is the FLA and why did you start the movement?

J Meighan- The FLA is a street movement formed in response to the terror attacks in the UK. It was founded after the London Bridge Attack, but the real game changer was the Manchester terror attack where young children lost their lives

J Mitchell- What were you intending to achieve when you started the FLA movement?

J Meighan- We were initially planning a small march through London with like minded people, but this soon evolved into tens of thousands marching

J Mitchell- How do you feel about the very limited response from the media (the BBC in particular) and the political class?

J Meighan– This was unsurprising. In meetings and interviews with the BBC and other media outlets it is clear that they have a narrative. Football rivals peacefully marching through London together is just too much of a happy ending, which doesn’t cut any ice fitting with their agenda

J Mitchell– Of the media outlets who have responded, they have labelled the FLA fascist and racist. How do you feel about this?

J Meighan– It was inevitable because anything right of left is seen as racist. I feel annoyed, frustrated and angry because it’s simply not true. The truth is in the pudding. The truth is in the two marches. You will always get idiots who latch on to any movement and use it for their own agenda, but we have tried to actively manage that issue and will continue to do so as and when it is possible.

Millwall, West Ham and Tottenham wreaths side by side

Lets have a look at John’s answer to question number 3 with regards to the fact that the media already had a narrative and that rival football fans marching peacefully is just too much of a happy ending. This is such a shame. The press had no interest after the FLA’s first march simply because it was peaceful and therefore successful. If things went sour and the rival football fans started kicking ten bells out of each other, the BBC would have been all over it!

After the second march the Independent newspaper decided to do a report, but not on the story of yet another successful march in which this time 30,000 rival football fans marched peacefully together; again with no one being arrested. The Independent chose to write about an incident in which the FLA marchers came across Stand up to Racism demonstrators, acting as an anti-Islamophobic counter-demonstration. Minor insults and derogatory chants were exchanged but nothing major. There certainly wasn’t any fighting; hence why no arrests were made. The FLA marchers were angry because they couldn’t understand why the Stand up to Racism counter-demonstrators were present. No one was being Islamophobic! Does being against Islamic extremism and terrorism count as Islamophobia? The question that the Independent should have been asking is “why were the counter-demonstrators even there at the scene?”

Stand up to Racism were opposing the FLA march. A bit weird seen as the FLA aren’t racist

As you get to the lesser powerful media outlets the bull**** gets even worse. The Searchlight Magazine and the Socialist Worker for example both label the FLA as fascist racists, the Searchlight Magazine claiming that in the FLA’s second march, “London witnessed the largest demonstration of the far-right in since before WW2”, and the Socialist Worker saying that “racism was at the heart of the FLA”. Come on Searchlight Magazine! Far-right? Really? Why does anything that is not left-wing liberal suffice the racist label these days? Even Wikipedia tells lies claiming that FLA founder John Meighan has previously served a prison sentence for football violence. Not true!

What I think is that the press were hoping that the rival football fans would clash during the FLA’s first march, and then there would have been an interesting story to report, even more interesting than feminist campaigners in Germany! Unfortunately for the press the march was peaceful. The press then couldn’t ignore two marches, therefore the Independent et al toed the lines of a sensitive society where everyone and anyone gets offended by everything and anything. They knew that there was nothing wrong with the two marches or the FLA movement as a whole, but the safest option for the press and the media is for them to demonise the Football Lads Alliance in order to keep the sensitive and easily offended people happy.

But I must ask what about keeping these rival football fans happy and listening to what their concerns are? Is it a social class issue? Prime Ministers come and go but every time each one of them promises to give more voice to the working people. Well now’s the chance! The FLA are working-class people, they are the biggest working-class movement since the miners’ strikes. Middle-aged pompous Guardian readers who latch on to a “Save Our NHS” demonstration, whilst feeling secure from any potential danger with their Bupa insurance DO NOT count as working-class. The FLA is the perfect example of who politician’s ‘supposedly’ want to hear from more often. But nah, still the political class aren’t interested in what the working people have got to say, as per usual.

There has been one or two politicians who have spoke out criticising the FLA, the usual suspects of course, i.e. Diane Abbott. Where was Diane Abbotts criticism of Sadiq Khan allowing the Al Quds march in London; Muslims with links to Hezbollah canting “death to Jews”?

Hezbollah is a terrorist organisation. Here’s their flag on the streets of London during Al Quds day

There’s obviously the risk of the FLA attracting far-right white supremacists and Nazi’s, but surely there is with any up and coming new movement. John Meighan has already said that the FLA group is politically neutral it is neither left or right, and he told me specifically that the FLA are aware that “idiots will latch on to the movement and use it for their own agenda, and the FLA will actively try to manage that issue”. You can’t ask for more than that.

The Football Lads Alliance are a group of working-class people trying to get their voices heard in a society dominated by the media and the political class. With the press already trying to belittle the FLA movement, they are practically claiming that any criticism of terrorism and Islamic extremism is in essence Islamophobic and racist. If you can’t criticise terrorism what can you criticise?

“Islam is not a religion of peace, it is a political theory of conquest that seeks domination by any means it can”– ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali.

Islamism is a concept that; despite occasionally being said throughout history, has come to surface in recent years since 9/11 in an effort to differentiate the religion of Islam with the Muslim extremists who act in the name of Islam.

Basically it is because of the politically correct west. To lesson the risk of generalising all 1.8billion Muslims with the same status, people thought it would be a good idea to divide Muslims into Muslims and Islamists, and Islam into Islam and Islamism.

This way, Islam can be kept just as a religion, and Islamism is the political aspect of Islam.

Islamism doesn’t have to be violent. It could involve terrorism and the killing of infidels, or just simply a Muslim preacher trying to influence his religion to non-believers on a street corner.

Islamism is just simply an effort in recent years to distinguish the regular and genuine practice of Islam, from the actual enforcement of Islam onto dibelievers.

The only problem is that politics has been a big part of Islam ever since its existence, so there’s no need to try and politicise it now with Islamism, Islam is already political. Islam is not just a religion. It is also a political ideology that primarily distinguishes between Muslims and the kafir (non-believers). Muslims go to paradise if they live without sin, the kafir are destined for hell no matter how they live their life.

Let me tell you a little story about Prophet Muhammad. Muhammad was born and lived in Mecca and it was there he lived as a spiritual leader, influencing Islam attempting to gain followers to his religion. In the space of 13 years he gained very little followers, most scholars appear to agree on a number of 150. Therefore Muhammad moved to Medina after 13 years along with his 150 followers and he chose to politicise Islam himself, changing his role as a spiritual leader into a political leader/warrior using jihad. From this the growth of Islam exploded. By the time Muhammad died, just about everyone in Arabia was a Muslim. Politics and Islamic jihad were maintained after Muhammad’s death, seen with the caliph Abu Bakr declaring war on those that left Islam (apostates), leaving thousands dead.

Different Islamic texts contradict the extent of the punishment for ‘leaving Islam’, however these were thought to be the laws across Muslim countries 4 years ago

Before Muhammad moved to Medina from Mecca he saw the people of the book (Jews and Christians) as allies. Once he moved to Medina, Muhammad demanded political loyalty from the Jews in return for religious and cultural autonomy. The Jews rejected this leading to Muhammad holding a more radical view of the Jews from then on. This is probably why Jewish people ended up either enslaved or dead during Muhammad’s political reign.

Therefore as you can see, there is no need to politicise Islam now with ‘Islamism’ because Islam itself has been political ever since Muhammad moved to Medina 1395 years ago. Prior to Medina there was seen to be moderate Islam. In Medina Islam involved politics, power and war. So just keep them two words in your head, power and war.

Oh by the way, after Medina, Muhammad went back to conquest Mecca, ultimately resulting in himself becoming the King of Arabia. Power. War.

Now lets get back to the present day and talk about some problems with the concept of ‘Islamism’.

For a start, Islamism is not recognised as a concept by Muslims in the Islamic world. If you ever come across a jihad (I hope you don’t) ask him if he commits jihad in the name of Islam or in the name of Islamism: his reply to your question will be “what the f*** is Islamism?!”

Islamists call themselves Muslims, and guess what… Islamists and Muslims follow the same religion! A blood thirsty jihad and a liberal secular moderate are both Muslim. The fact is, if there was nothing wrong with Islam there’d be no need for the concept ‘Islamism’ to be thought of in the first place! What will we have in the future, moderate Islamism?

How come Islam is the only religion that gets itself an extended ‘ism’? You don’t hear of Catholicists terrorising with acts of Catholicism. When the IRA were planting bombs in Britain were they referred to as Irishists? Were they conducting acts of Irishism?

Islamism is a politically correct invention because people are now too scared to criticise Islam or Muslims. People don’t want to be labelled as racist or Islamophobic. (I don’t believe that ‘Islamophobic’ is a word, because a phobia is an irrational fear, and a fear/disliking of Islam as a political ideology is not irrational).

Political Islam means that non-believers can never get away from Islam, and the best example of this is Sharia Law, an Islamic legal system which is essentially a political ideology. See what I mean? Sharia Law is an Islamic legal system not an Islamist legal system! Sharia Law is an example of how politics is part of Islam…

THEREFORE ISLAM AND ISLAMISM ARE THE SAME THING!

‘Islamists’ such as Anjem Choudary believe that political-economic systems of government that are not Islamic; western democracy being the prime example, oppress Muslims; meaning that Sharia Law is the only answer. Democracy isn’t perfect, but it is by far the best political system of government the world has got. However Islamists such as Anjem Choudary pick out the worst aspects of democracy and use it to justify Sharia Law. Sharia Law in any society would of course mean no freedom and no liberty, and it would involve the enforcement of Islam on the kafir. That is what you call ‘Islamism’, or what I prefer to call Islam.

Moderate Muslims such as Dr Tofik Ahmed accept that politics is a major part of Islam, hence why Islam needs reforming. Dr Tofik Ahmed says that “the politics needs to be taken out of Islam and certain verses of the Qur’an need to be reinterpreted”. However this means that the more ‘Islamist’ Muslims such as Anjem Choudary accuse Dr Tofik Ahmed of not being a real Muslim. Radicals and Moderates often argue in contemporary society as to what makes a Muslim a real Muslim. Nothing new seen as Muslims have been fighting amongst themselves for nearly 1400 years since the death of prophet Muhammad. It is no surprise then that the 1.8billion Muslims living today can’t seem to get together and form a stable government.

Snapshot of Dr Tofik Ahmed and Dr Bill Warner debating ‘Islamism’. Video found on YouTube (Anjem Choudary also took part in the debate)

Unfortunately, the fact is Islam is more of a political ideology than a religion. I’m not saying that all Muslims are political, there are good and bad Muslims just as there is good and bad Christians and good and bad atheists. Islamism is a concept invented by the PC in order to give more justification for labelling any critic of ‘Muslims’ and ‘Islam’ a racist. Can Islamism even exist when there is difficulty defining exactly what it is amongst the Muslim community?. To solve the world’s problems caused by Islam you need to reform the religion itself; take out the politics whilst maintaining the religious and spiritual practices. In order to do this the Qur’an will need to be drastically reinterpreted. The world’s problems caused by Islam cannot be solved with an ‘ism’.

*Influence for this post taken from the work of Dr Bill Warner and Charlie Klendijan at Law Secular Society

Of course it is generally agreed that the world would be a more peaceful and better place if it wasn’t for religion, but there’s no denying that the religion most associated with violence, terrorism and extremism is Islam.

All religions and their scriptures need reforming to coincide with present day moderation, and believers of any religion can be defined as radical or moderate based on the extent of their acceptance of their religion’s reformation; from the original holy text. So first, lets outline examples of the basic differences between radical and moderate Muslims:

Finally, what I feel is the easiest way to differentiate radical Muslims and moderate Muslims:

Radical Muslims are more loyal to Islam, moderate Muslims are more loyal to the state

Obviously there is an irrational stereotype that every individual Muslim themselves are violent extremists who commit terror, which is naive and completely untrue. This is why here in the liberated West, it is genuine common knowledge that radical Muslims are only a tiny minority and Islam is followed by a vast majority of moderate and peaceful Muslims.

However, are radical Muslims really that much of a minority? Statistics gathered by Pure Research, 2011 suggest not. Lets start by looking at the proportion of Muslims in some middle-eastern, Asian and African countries who support strict Sharia Law:

50% of Indonesian Muslims (the largest Muslim population in the world) support strict Sharia Law

76% of Pakistani Muslims support strict Sharia Law

65% of Egyptian Muslims support strict Sharia Law

82% of Bangladeshi Muslims support strict Sharia Law

71% of Nigerian Muslims support strict Sharia Law

83% of Iranian Muslims support strict Sharia Law

75% of Moroccan Muslims support strict Sharia Law

99% of Afghan Muslims support strict Sharia Law

89% of Palestinian Muslims support strict Sharia Law

You don’t have to be a terrorist to be a radical Muslim, supporting strict Sharia Law is enough. Countries that do incorporate Sharia Law only do so to an extent with a lot of the legislation reformed and moderated, but strict Sharia Law would involve punishments such as the amputation of someones hands for theft, or the death penalty to anyone who criticises Prophet Muhammad or Allah.

Aside from Sharia Law, there are other statistics gathered from the same study that show perhaps that radical Muslims are NOT a minority in certain Muslim countries:

78% of Iraqi Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified

60% of Jordanian Muslims support the terrorist group Hamas

70% of Indonesian Muslims blame America and/or Israel for 9/11

70% of Egyptian Muslims supported Osama Bin Laden

25% of Bangladeshi Muslims think that suicide bombing can be justified

67% of Bangladeshi Muslims also think that the honour killings of women can be justified

32% of Turkish Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified (that’s coming from what is thought to be the most moderate Muslim country)

76% of Afghan Muslims think that the honour killings of women can be justified

78% of Palestinian Muslims supported Osama Bin Laden

89% of Palestinian Muslims also support terrorist attacks on Israel

And then there’s in the West!

52% of British Muslims think that homosexuality should be illegal

78% of British Muslims also think that people who draw Prophet Muhammad in a cartoon should be prosecuted

35% of French Muslims think that suicide bombing can be justified

19% of American Muslims are favourable to Al Qaeda

13% of American Muslims also think violence towards civilians can be justified

The alarming statistics above collected by Pure Research (don’t ask me how the research was carried out I can’t find the original results, I’ve gained these results from a second source; Ben Shapiro) only include 942 million Muslims from a possible 1.6 billion. This is because the study wasn’t carried out in many Muslim countries, for example Yemen, Libya, or of course; Saudi Arabia.

I say “of course” when it comes to Saudi Arabia because SA is the home country of ‘Wahhabism’; an ultra-conservative Islamic doctrine that influences the original readings of Islam, i.e. making it the most radical interpretation of Islam. This is why Wahhabism is known as ‘Pure Islam’; no deviation from Sharia Law whatsoever. If you want to find yourself a radical Muslim, the best place to look is Saudi Arabia. SA is known as ‘the breeding ground for terrorism’, with ISIS, Boko Haram and Al Qaeda gaining influence from Wahhabism.

The sad thing is that Britain is an ally of Saudi Arabia. They trade arms with one another and Saudi Arabia funds some of the British mosques; meaning that the evils of Wahhabism is taught to British children here in our own country.

Outside of Saudi Arabia, Muslims are divided primarily between Sunni and Shia Muslims, both having been fighting each other for 1400 years. Sunnis are thought to be the most radical of the two, which is a shame seen as 90% of the world’s Muslim population are Sunnis. Shias are less associated with radicalism, extremism or terrorism, but unfortunately both Wahhabis and Sunnis oppose the Shia interpretation of Islam. The Shia branch of Islam isn’t completely free of radicalism however. There’s Hezbollah and Shia militias funded by Iran.

In conclusion, the alarming fact is that the world’s radical Muslim population are not the minority that they are assumed to be here in Britain and the rest of the liberated West. I have Muslim friends and I am fairly sure that they are all moderate Muslims without radical opinions. Come to think of it however, I wouldn’t say they are ‘proper Muslims’. The Muslim women I know don’t wear Islamic face wear, and one chap I have in mind likes to have a night out on the booze with a bacon sandwich the next morning.

Moderate Muslims accept a reformed Islam that differs from the original writing of the Qu’ran, radical Muslims do not. So next time there’s a terrorist attack and you hear liberals say: “they’re not real Muslims they’ve read the Qu’ran wrong, Islam is the religion of peace”, remember the terrorists have actually correctly read the Qu’ran word for word, its moderate Muslims who read the Qu’ran wrong.

Firstly let’s get one thing straight, I am not racist, I am not xenophobic, I am not a white supremacist, I am not a white nationalist, I am not a neo-Nazi, I am not a fascist, I am not a chauvinist, and I am not any of the other possible insulting labels that liberals will try and give me after they read this blog post.

Lets start by looking at some statistics:

At the latest consensus (which was 6 years ago so the figures will now be more exaggerated), the number of immigrants coming to Great Britain was seen to rise by 3 million in the first decade of this century, and there are now more than 3 million households in this country who’s first language spoken is a foreign language. As for in London, only 40% of Londoners now define themselves as white British and white Brits are a minority in 22 of the 33 boroughs (just to be clear I know the race of Brits is irrelevant because anyone can be a native Brit non-immigrant no matter what skin colour they have. I’m just trying to put into perspective how the ‘stereotypical’ British person, i.e. white, is now becoming a minority). At the end of last year net migration was a staggering 335,000! Far from unsustainable. Of course that means the Bliar and Brown Labour government can’t be solely blamed for the unsustainable number of people currently living on this tiny island, the Conservatives as well.

Over the past few years there has been far too much immigration and it is now getting out of hand. Britain is losing its culture and its identity and because of multiculturalism we Brits are now struggling to define who we are. What are British values? Once it was tea, scones, Wimbledon, the Queen, Parliament, our treasured NHS, the justice system, schools, universities, the Beatles, David Beckham. Now all that’s been ‘watered down’ and Britain now stands for political correctness instead. A society where freedom of speech is banned because of the fear that minorities will be offended. To be clear, I personally I think different cultures are fantastic! Travel the world and experience different cultures just like I did: New Zealand, Malaysia, Poland, Stevenage; but don’t bring different cultures here to replace our culture, because that’s what multiculturalism is. Even Angela Merkal, the main face behind the EU’s freedom of movement policy and also with the welcoming of a million Syrian refugees, has admitted that multiculturalism has been a failure.

As for the economy, well you always hear the same argument from liberals all the time that “immigration is good for the economy, immigrants pay more in taxes than they take in benefits”, when in fact immigration does not have much of an impact on the economy. The previous Labour government claimed that immigration contributed £6billion to the economy, but they were not taking GDP per head into account. A study by the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee found that when GDP per head was taken into account, “there was no evidence that immigration provided any significant economic benefit to the existing UK population”. Immigrants themselves are the main economic beneficiaries. As for the argument that immigrants proportionately pay more tax, the same HLEAC report concluded that “the fiscal impact (of immigration) is small compared to GDP and cannot be used to justify large-scale immigration”.

Britain is full and too overcrowded! Again, you get the same argument from liberals; “2/3rds of Britain is countryside there is plenty of room!” What, are immigrants expected to live in fields? There isn’t enough infrastructure, not enough places in schools, not enough hospital beds, not enough social housing. I’ve only been driving a car for two years and I now already see the differences that the extra 750,000 people in Britain since I first started driving my car, have made to extra traffic. Being in a traffic jam in London at 2am is not cool. Of course that means that there is an argument that immigration would be more beneficiary to Britain if more money was contributed to public spending, but that ain’t going to happen with this Conservative government. There is also the fact that 93% of immigrants who move to Britain move to England, making England the 2nd most densely populated nation within the EU.

As for the NHS, there is no denying that the NHS has benefited from immigration massively, but the NHS didn’t have to depend on immigrants. The easy option was chosen, and instead what should have been done was to train more British people as medical staff. 35% of NHS doctors are foreign qualified, compared to 5% in Italy, 10.5% in Germany and 15% in France.

Now before all the lefties pound me for what I’ve so far wrote in this article, lets bring up the obvious fact that the Establishment and the corporate elite benefit massively from immigration because capitalists make extra profit by exploiting immigrant workers with a cheaper wage. But when left-wing media outlets such as Huff Post and the Guardian bang on about the increasing rich-poor divide in Britain, they always fail to highlight that one of the main reasons for this is mass immigration.

Finally i’m going to tell you the main reason I want our borders closed, something personal to me and I assume that none of you liberals will be able to argue against this. After a brain injury left me severely disabled, I now have a speech impediment meaning I can’t talk clearly or loudly. At home in Barnsley, I will confidently talk to any stranger certain that they will be fluent in English and are likely to understand what i’m saying. However with me travelling a lot, spending a lot of time in London, i’m finding it harder to talk to people in general, because more people in general now have a foreign language as their first language. With them communication with me is near enough impossible. There’s nothing more frustrating for me than to try and give directions to a Turkish Uber driver.

I understand that there has been massive benefits to this country from immigration and I understand that there has been times where Great Britain has needed immigrants. I am quarter Polish, my Grandad moved to this country from Poland at a time when immigration was needed after WW2 to help rebuild this country. That was a war in which he fought himself alongside the British allies, and I am proud to say I am quarter Polish and a close descendant of an immigrant. But immigration now needs to stop! I am not saying that immigration needs to stop forever, I am not saying “never let anyone in”. But before we open our borders again, more schools need to be built, more hospitals need to be built, more social housing needs to be constructed and more infrastructure needs to be put in place. Then hopefully by that time, we’ll have fully departed from the bureaucratic EU, and will once again be able to control our own sovereign borders with a sustainable immigration policy.

“I meet people in the street who don’t like me, and they don’t know why they don’t like me” – Tommy Robinson.

I can see why people do not like Tommy Robinson.

Follow the media’s coverage of Tommy Robinson, particularly the press from left-wing platforms, and you’ll understand why. It’s because he is racist, a fascist, a bigot, a neo-Nazi and a white supremacist.

Of course you should understand from the previous articles I have wrote on this blog that the press is genuinely full of s**t, lies, lies, more lies, exploiting the minds of the politically uneducated in order to spread their own opinion.

Tommy Robinson is not a racist, a fascist, a bigot, a neo-Nazi, or a white supremacist, he is simply a political activist against Islamic extremism (like the rest of us), and a harsh critique of Islam and the Qu’ran as a whole.

To put Robinson’s role as an activist into the fewest words possible, he first created and led the EDL from 2009-2013. He created the EDL as a reaction to a Muslim protest against British soldiers marching through his home town of Luton. Robinson said that the Muslims in this protest held signs saying “Death to British Soldiers” and were seen spitting in the soldier’s faces as they marched through Luton in front of their wives and kids. He was angered by the protection these Muslim protesters received from the police. Robinson left the EDL because he didn’t like the association that the EDL had with fascism and racism, and he didn’t like the fact that the EDL was attracting racists and neo-Nazis, something which he had always tried to prevent. After the EDL Robinson worked with Quilliam; a counter-extremist government funded think tank who basically paid Robinson in order to take credit for him leaving the EDL. An inevitable spat arose between Robinson and Quilliam and he is now seen working with Rebel Media and Pegida.

The most evidential argument to disassociate Tommy Robinson from Nazism is his support for the Jewish community within Luton and Britain as a whole, and the fact that Robinson defines himself as a Zionist.

Robinson is a supporter of the sovereign nation-state of Israel, describing it as a “perfect homeland for Jewish people”. Ask yourself this, what is the one religious/ethnic group most associated with being hated by fascists and Nazis? Jewish people of course! So would Tommy Robinson really wear a badge on his suit with the writing “I am a Zionist” if he was a neo-Nazi? That’s why him and Nick Griffin have previously had spats. Griffin of course is a ‘hater’ of Jewish people, an anti-Semitic neo-Nazi leader of the British National Party who calls Robinson a “traitor”.

This brings up the BNP, and yes, Tommy Robinson did join the BNP when he was younger and somewhat naive. But he soon withdrew his BNP membership after realising how racist the politically party actually were. He didn’t initially realise that Nick Griffin used to be a part of the National Front, and he didn’t initially realise that black people weren’t allowed to join the BNP. “I joined, I saw what it was about, it was not for me”, which is why Griffin calls Robinson a traitor.

Unlike a white supremacist, Tommy Robinson has had many positive interactions with people of ethnic and religious minority besides Jewish people; black people, Asian people, Sikhs, Hindus and Muslims. Robinson most noticeably has found it easy to befriend Sikhs and visa-versa, due to his admiration of the fact that Sikhs in general are courageous. He visited a Sikh temple in Manchester after the terrorist attack earlier in the year to stand in unity with Sikhs who held a candlelit vigil for the victims of the Manchester terrorist attack. Robinson said that Sikhs had always been “wrongly identified as problematic”, and he wanted to educate people because “Sikhs have been fighting Islamic extremism ever since their existence”.

The press have always created a stigma against Tommy Robinson portraying him as a racist purely because of his previous leadership of the EDL (most notably by the Guardian); the EDL being a protest movement also portrayed as racist by the press (most notably by the Guardian).

Recently through Rebel Media, Robinson has set up Trollwatch; videos that see him challenge the people who have wrongfully labelled him a racist through the press or social media, to try and get them to explain their bull***t. Not once in any of the Trollwatch videos are any of the people Robinson challenges able to explain why they called him a racist, a fascist or a white supremacist. Below is a link to an example of Tommy Robinson challenging Tim Fenton, asking the journalist to explain why he called Robinson a racist in the Guardian, with Tim Fenton seen to be hiding away like a coward and unable to answer Robinson’s questions:

The most noticeable slandering of Tommy Robinson; portraying him as a white supremacist, was written in an article by Julia Ebner, a Quilliam researcher writing for the Guardian (there was no need to tell you which newspaper, by now you could have easily worked that out yourselves). Ebner didn’t directly call Tommy a white supremacist, her argument was that she “didn’t specifically call Robinson a white supremacist she wrote that Robinson attracted people from all kinds of far-right extremist groups”. Here is an excerpt from the article below where Tommy Robinson’s name was mentioned:

I am now going to write that paragraph out where Robinson’s name is mentioned below word for word, except for the small change of 2 of them 51 words:

“That the far right has moved from the fringe into the mainstream demonstrates the massive support that the white supremacist movements have attracted from digital natives. Their online followership often exceeds that of mainstream political parties: with over 200,000 followers, Diane Abbott’s twitter account has almost the same number of followers as Theresa May’s.”

Now you’re thinking that’s funny or that’s stupid or both because Diane Abbott is obviously not a white supremacist. But hang on a minute, I didn’t call Diane Abbott a white supremacist, just like Julia Ebner didn’t call Tommy Robinson a white supremacist.

With the press you get lies and a stigma when it comes to Tommy Robinson, and it is the same with social media, allowing liberals and even celebrities to jump on the ‘racist Tommy Robinson’ bandwagon (type in Tommy Robinson V Lily Allen on Google. It was quite amusing to see Lily Allen lose a debate on Twitter to Tommy Robinson and thus therefore throw the racist card at him, threaten him with legal action and block him on twitter). One thing I have noticed is that the people in general who criticise Robinson on Twitter, appear to come from a privileged middle-class background which makes them see only a tiny impact from immigration or Islam. They could never understand Robinson’s working-class background in a town as multicultural as Luton. Here’s an example of another Trollwatch video from Rebel Media below:

It should be stated (although it shouldn’t really only the naive would assume…) that Tommy Robinson is not against all Muslims or any average Muslim he may happen to come across, after all, he has always came across many Muslims because he’s lived alongside them all his life. “I’m not against all 1 billion Muslims because I think Muslims themselves are victims of Islam, so I’m not against all Muslims”. He is against Violent Muslims who commit terrorist acts in the name of Islam. Now you’re thinking, “yeah but aren’t we all against Islamic extremism?” Well yes of course! Meaning that Tommy Robinson ain’t that different to the rest of us!

“No one from the EDL would care about a Muslim living their life peacefully, doing Ramadan, if we didn’t see all the hate”.

This is why Tommy went on an 18 month ‘journey’ with Mohammed ‘Mo’ Ansar in an effort for the both of them to understand each others opposing opinions on Islam, filmed as a documentary titled “When Tommy met Mo” for the BBC.

Throughout this documentary both Tommy Robinson and Mo Ansar were seen to have respect for each other and make friends with one another. Mo was seen to invite Tommy into his mosque so that Robinson could have discussions with Muslim scholars (criticised by Nick Griffin BNP because Tommy politely took his shoes off in the mosque), and Tommy invited Mo to speak with fellow EDL members; the first ever Muslim to do as such. It didn’t end two well for the pair though however. The leader of Quilliam Maajid Nawaz interviewed Mo, and Mo was seen to be unable to show support for some of the basic human rights, human rights that are contradictory to certain verses written in the Qu’ran; chopping women’s hands off as punishment for theft. It was after this that Tommy Robinson joined Maajid Nawaz at Quilliam after leaving the EDL, and Mo Ansar was not allowed to attend the press conference where this was announced because Tommy didn’t want him taking credit for him leaving the EDL.

Tommy Robinson doesn’t hate Muslims that should be fairly obvious by now, he hates the religion they follow. The difference is is that when Tommy tried to speak out about the problems of Islamism in his hometown no one would listen. Mainstream politicians have always refused to engage with Robinson, setting the platform for the media to scrutinise his political activism and label him as a fascist. Islamism is a problem in Luton. There are 25 mosques in Luton, how many of them mosques promote the Saudi Arabian doctrine of Wahhabism I do not know, but you can understand why the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in Tommy Robinson’s hometown is dangerous.

Therefore Robinson had, and still has, a right to speak out about the problem of Islamism he has done nothing wrong by doing that. Unfortunately he has always been hammered by the left and the press for doing so. He knows more about Islam than any other average Englishman, and I wouldn’t be surprised if he knew more about Islam than the average British Muslim. He often gets challenged and confronted by Muslims in the street and Robinson will then teach those Muslims aspects of their faith that they did not know themselves. This is because Tommy Robinson has read the Qu’ran, he has read the biography of prophet Muhammad written by Ibn Ishaq and he does know the ins and outs of Islam. This is what Robinson’s political activism is based on, a teaching of the Qu’ran and the prophet Muhammad, or more precisely; a teaching of everything that is wrong with the Qu’ran and everything that is wrong with the prophet Muhammad. But yes if any religious text, including the bible, is interpreted word for word, then there would always be more hate fuelled because all religious texts are backwards and have no place in contemporary society. However, Wahhabism is a literal interpretation of the Qu’ran being taught in British mosques to British children as young as 7. There are no British children in christian churches as young as 7, being taught to commit genocide against neighbouring people (1 Samuel 15:3).

One example of the knowledge Tommy Robinson has regarding Islam, and perhaps why you should trust him more than the media, is seen with Didsbury mosque in Manchester and the related terrorist attacks in May this year.

In the image above you can see a picture of a spokesman representing Didsbury mosque which is the mosque in which the Manchester suicide bomber attended. I remember seeing the press conference on Sky news in which the Didsbury mosque spokesperson above spoke, with him condemning the terrorist attack and him putting division between the mosque and the attacker. He made it clear that the mosque did not promote hatred or Islamic terrorism, and he made it clear that the attacker did not have his terrorist actions influenced on him with his attendance at Didsbury mosque. At the time watching the press conference I thought to myself “oh well that’s good then at least the mosque ain’t to blame for the attack”.

Fast forward two months, whilst doing research on Tommy Robinson in preparation for this article I learnt the truth about Didsbury mosque. I learned about the clerics that have previously spoken and taught there and the potential hatred preached that could have influenced the Manchester suicide bomber into his actions. Here’s a list of the Islamists who have spoken at Didsbury mosque and some of the Muslims who are associated with Didsbury mosque, also known as the Manchester Islamic centre:

Abdur Raheem Green

1) Abdur Raheem Green- a British Muslim convert who stresses the fact that men are superior to women “simply because it says so in the Qu’ran”. He is chairman of the iERA, an Islamic hate group who have promoted anti-Semitism and called for homosexuals and female adulterers to be stoned to death. He also has links to the Portsmouth Jihadis.

Muhammad Ibn Adam

2) Muhammad Ibn Adam- a cleric who justified the Charlie Hebdo attacks, saying “it was the right thing to do”. He says that Muslims should not make friends with non-Muslims, and if a Muslim was to bump into a non-Muslim on the pavement they should make that non-Muslim cross over the road. Adam said that cheating wives should be stoned to death, unless they are pregnant where they should be stoned to death after the baby is born. He also said that women should not leave their homes unnecessarily (“WHERE ARE ALL THE FEMINISTS ON THESE ISSUES!?”- Tommy Robinson).

Abu Qatada

3) Abu Qatada- probably the most well know Islamist jihad to have lived in Britain. He said that “the wives and children of those who leave Islam should be killed”. A court statement said that Qatada was “providing advice that gave religious legitimacy to those who wish to further the aims of Islamic extremism and to engage in terrorist attacks, including suicide bombings”.

Abdullah Hakim Quick

4) Abdullah Hakim Quick- a Canadian Imam who said that “in Islam, gays should be executed. Homosexuality goes with Zionism”.

Abu Eesa Niamatullah

5) Abu Eesa Niamatullah- This cleric, who happens to live in Manchester, says that anyone who insults the prophet Muhammad should be given the death penalty. Also, one for the feminists to pick up on (but I bet they won’t), Niamatullah also said that women should not be in the workplace whatsoever, they should stay home and play housewife instead.

Ramadan Abedi

6) Ramadan Abedi- This man is the father of the Manchester suicide bomber Salman Abedi. Ramadan Abedi fought for the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, a group which had links with Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda and were designated by America as a foreign terrorist organisation in 2004.

Farzi Haffar

7) Farzi Haffar- You may or may not recognise this man above from a previous image, but yes it is the spokesperson who was asked to talk on behalf of Didsbury mosque at the press conference after the Manchester terrorist attack. Quite bizarre they asked him to do the speech really since he has been previously caught out on social media being offensive to Jewish people, calling all Israeli Jews Nazis! Suppose he was the best of a bad bunch asked to talk at the press conference out of all the possible representatives of Didsbury Mosque.

Now to the main topic of this article which is not a criticism of Didsbury mosque or Muslim Jihadis or even Islam, but the highlighting of Tommy Robinson consistently being denied the freedom of speech during his time as a political activist. So now I’ll review how the police and the establishment have consistently stitched Robinson up and tried to stop him speaking his opinion, in our British police state.

The police have never wanted Tommy Robinson to speak because their jobs would be easier if possible tensions weren’t created between him, the EDL and Muslim communities. The old bill have consistently used tactics to try and stop Tommy Robinson speaking as a political activist; house raids, petty arrests, and the general attempt at scaring him and his family.

The police have had a pattern of arresting Robinson on a made up charge only so they could bail him on restrictions of where he could and couldn’t go and what he could and couldn’t say. These patterns of arrest were most noticeable at the timings of planned EDL marches, with charges being dropped after the EDL march had taken place. There are numerous examples of these petty arrests I could use. One is when the police pulled Robinson’s car over and arrested him on suspicion of driving a stolen vehicle, even though the vehicle that Tommy was driving had been bought on finance from Vauxhall. Another is when 15 coppers raided Tommy Robinson’s mum’s house with machine guns. This was because a man ‘fitting Tommy’s description’ had been seen causing £30’s worth of damage in a hotel!

The police also once arrested Tommy Robinson and his wife, interviewing his wife for 8 hours whilst she was 6 months pregnant, for tax evasion and money laundering. The bail conditions meant that Tommy’s assets were frozen and his businesses were closed, and him and his wife had to live on no more than £250 a week for four years otherwise they would have to serve 18 month prison sentences. Sounds bizarre doesn’t it? These restraining orders given in Britain; a land of freedom and opportunity? Of course the charges were in the end dropped.

After the arrests for tax evasion and money laundering, the police were seen to arrest Tommy and convict him for swearing at a football match. Of course the press picked up on this and made Robinson out to be a notorious football hooligan involved in a 150 man strong brawl.

Meanwhile, the police were forensically investigating Tommy Robinson and all his family for any possible crime of the previous ten years, petty crimes such as not paying VAT on items bought off Ebay…

By this time Robinson had had 6 different warnings from the government warning him that 6 different people wanted to kill him, and so him and family were offered new identities in a different countries. What for? Because he had originally spoke out criticising Islam!

In 2011 Tommy Robinson was jailed for 10 months for using a false passport (his friends). The reason he used a false passport was because a year earlier, Robinson travelled to America after the world’s 3rd biggest PR company set up a meeting with him and members of congress. Tommy described how that was the difference between Britain and America, Britain is drowned with excess political correctness and therefore the freedom of speech is denied, but in America those in power want to hear what people had to say. No one powerful in Britain cared about what Robinson ever had to say ever since he formed the EDL. However on his arrival that time, Tommy was arrested as soon as he landed at JFK airport because the British police had told America to do that. They didn’t want Tommy Robinson’s message to go mainstream in America. This is why Robinson went to the lengths he did a year later by using his friend’s passport.

Whilst Tommy Robinson was in prison the EDL on the outside had attracted racists and far-right neo-Nazis, something which Robinson had always tried to keep out. This led to his decision to leave the EDL but he didn’t stop campaigning. During his time campaigning, he noticed that the police seemed to offer Muslims and Muslim communities more protection than they did him and his family. The examples I will highlight are incidents in Birmingham, East London and at his parents house.

In Birmingham, Robinson read online that a Muslim was arrested for ‘bricking’ a police officer, but afterwards the he was let go because the local Imam plus 200 other Muslims stormed the police station demanding that the attacker be released. Tommy asked a police officer in Birmingham if this was true, and the PO said it was because they didn’t want any Muslim riots to start in Birmingham which would have spread nationwide. This effectively means that the Imam of that certain Birmingham community had more power than the local police.

In Tower Hamlets, Robinson and his cousin Kevin were arrested for ‘walking’ on Armed Forces Day. The police knew they would be walking through that densely Muslim populated area of London but had asked them not to because they were scared of the possible Muslim reaction. Tommy and his cousin did so anyway because they weren’t breaking any law. They were both attacked by what Tommy believed were undercover policemen, and they were arrested for defending themselves.

An incident occurred in Luton after a number of Muslims got knowledge of who Tommy Robinson’s family were and thus followed his family in a car back to their house, eventually standing in the front garden with weapons threatening the family. Robinson rushed to the house when he heard what was happening and was therefore.. arrested by the police! The Muslims in his family’s front garden with weapons were not even searched, never mind arrested.

Now, back to the point where the police had been forensically investigating Tommy and all his family looking for anything they could get an arrest for. I’m not going to go into all the details you’ll have to listen to Tommy Robinson’s speech on the ‘British Police State’. Basically the old bill couldn’t get anything on Tommy, however they did have possible charges on the rest of his family. So they did a deal with Tommy. His brother in law many years ago had filled in a mortgage form incorrectly, and Robinson had happened to lend that brother in law the money for the mortgage deposit. Therefore the police said to Tommy; “if you do an 18 month sentence for mortgage fraud, we’ll let all your family go free of charge”. Also, Tommy’s assets which had been frozen would again be allowed to be accessed.

Of course the press had a field day when they found out that Tommy Robinson had been sent down for fraud.

In prison for the 2nd time, Tommy was again being shown to be stitched up by the system with the governor of that prison failing to protect his safety. Before all this had happened with the supposed mortgage fraud, 6 Muslims were arrested and sent down for 30 years after being caught on their way to blow up an EDL march with explosives, an EDL march where Tommy was present. Tommy Robinson happened to be in the same prison this time as those 6 Muslims, and the governor had ordered Tommy to be put on to the same wing as them. If it wasn’t for a certain prison guard- ex-royal marine getting Tommy to safety before he was put on that wing, he would have been 100% guaranteed to have been killed by those 6 Muslims. There were still times during that prison sentence where Tommy Robinson was savagely beaten by Muslim inmates, simply because he was Tommy Robinson.

When Tommy got towards the end of his prison sentence, he was approached by two members of the Metropolitan Investigation Bureau; a secretive organisation at Scotland Yard, who wanted Robinson to work for them after he got out by being a grass. DESPITE TOMMY ROBINSON BEING AGAINST THE FAR-RIGHT, the MIB wanted Tommy to unite the far-right; Britain First, the National Front etc., and inform them of any potential far-right terrorist attack. When Tommy did get out, he found that his assets were still frozen and that the MIB were trying to blackmail him.

Shortly after Tommy Robinson got out of the nick, an incident occurred on Twitter when a neo-Nazi threatened to rape his mum (Robinson often got threats and abuse on social media from the far-right as well as from leftys and Muslims). Tommy decided to take this threat into his own hands seen as the old bill had done absolutely nothing about the 100’s of death threats him and his family had received over the years. When he went to meet this neo-Nazi at the designated time and place that had been arranged, the police were waiting for Tommy, and of course, this resulted in Tommy once again being arrested and back in prison.

Surely now you are all seeing a pattern with the police stitching Tommy Robinson up, keeping him locked up for as long as possible for absolutely ‘nothing crimes’, all so he can’t voice his democratic opinion.

Once inside, Tommy’s safety was again failed to be protected by the prison. On this occurrence, Robinson got a tip off from a fellow inmate that a Somalian inmate was planning on throwing boiling water on Tommy. Therefore, Tommy attacked this Somalian inmate first, for his own safety because he knew what was coming.

To cut a long story short, after Robinson got out of jail this time, he was again arrested because of the incident that occurred with the Somalian prisoner before. Tommy was set to get locked up again. The video evidence of Robinson attacking the Somalian inmate had been edited and parts deleted, so that you couldn’t see the inmate before tipping Tommy off letting him know that he was about to be attacked.

Luckily this time, one of Tommy’s Canadian friends got involved in the situation and got Tommy the best legal representation that money could buy. This time, the judge in court dismissed the case, and finally Tommy Robinson was able to break free from the cycle of getting locked up for doing naff all, being released, getting locked up again for doing naff all and again being released.

Now that this cycle was over with however, it didn’t stop the police’s tactics what had plagued Tommy Robinson and his family for years; harassing them, stalking them and criminalising every move they made.

Just last year Tommy was eating a meal with friends and family, including his three children, at a pub in Cambridge. For no reason at all, 12 police officers went to that pub and ordered Tommy and his family to leave, with the argument that the group he was sitting with having a meal were violent troublemakers and fighting would inevitably occur. After arguing with these 12 police officers for half hour, being backed up by the pub staff who were trying to explain to the officers that Robinson and his family had done nothing wrong, they were still made to leave. Once Tommy and his family had left the pub, the police officers unnecessarily followed them down the street in an intimidating manner. They were being absolute bullies. By this time, Tommy’s children were crying because they felt so scared by the following police officers, and even Tommy’s son tried to run away from the officers running into a busy road nearly getting himself killed.

Therefore after that day, every time Tommy Robinson’s children saw a police officer in the street or in the car or anywhere possible, they would get frightened and start crying. It took three police officers, two in uniform and one in a suit, to call at Tommy’s house and give him a football banning order (no reason for that banning order, the old bill just doing their regular job of enforcing unnecessary power and control over Tommy Robinson’s life). Its bad enough that his children were frightened of the police when they saw them in the street, but deliberately going to his home in order to scare his family!? Because that was just another one of the many tactics used by the police in order to try and silence Tommy Robinson. Make his children cry.

All this bullying, all this intimidating, all these lies from the police were for the sole purpose of stopping Tommy Robinson voicing his democratic opinion on Islam. Link to Tommy Robinson’s full ‘Police State’ speech below:

Throughout this article you can see that Tommy Robinson has never been properly listened to because of the power that the press and the police have had in denying his freedom of speech. A democracy is not just about having the right to vote because political activism is also one of the many elements of a healthy democracy. Therefore you could argue that judging by Tommy Robinson consistently being stopped from acting as a political activist, Great Britain is not democratic at all. It is wrong that a free press is able to have the power to belittle an individual’s genuine concerns in a society where working-class opinions aren’t taken seriously anyway, and it is wrong that the authorities are allowed to go to so much effort in bringing down a man and his family all for the name of political correctness.

Diane Abbott has a had a successful career enjoying the luxuries of a middle-class life that is found amongst the political elite. Despite her living with the joys of being a politician, she has based her career on being a voice for the ethnic minorities and a campaigner for race equality. With this has come many controversies, although the extent of the controversies is of course debatable. You may feel that Diane Abbott has been subject to unnecessary negative attention from a right-wing media, after all, the controversies I am about to highlight to you are mainly found in reports from media outlets such as the Telegraph and the Daily Mail. But whilst I highlight Abbott’s mishaps, ask yourself “would a white politician get away with doing that?”

The first naive moment of Abbott’s career I am going to highlight is when she generalised all white people as being the same. She posted a tweet on twitter stating that “white people love to play divide and rule”, with the hashtag “tactics as old as colonialism”. By this she is referring to modern day white people being the same as certain people in colonial times when empires, such as Great Britain, divided and subjected people to their rule depending on their race. This tweet is ludicrous and laughable from Diane Abbott seen as we now live in the 21st century, and people of all races living in Diane Abbott’s country enjoy the freedoms of a democracy. But with that tweet, Abbott generalised all 52 million white people living in Britain as being the same. Or maybe it was all 1.2 billion white people living in the world who love to play divide and rule, she didn’t make it quite clear. However imagine if it was a white politician generalising black people as of loving to play divide and rule, or as of loving to do a ‘more suited’ black stereotype (I’m not going to give an example because the PC will throw the racist card at me, I’m probably already pushing the limit).

Diane Abbott apologised for her tweet, but only because her leader Ed Miliband made her, she wasn’t going to! She got away with it not being forced to resign because she is a black politician generalising white people, not a white politician generalising black people.

The next point I’d like to highlight concerning Diane Abbott’s prejudice against white people is a Labour Party bill board seen in her constituency of Hackney North and Stoke Newington.

This Labour Party billboard was being used in the campaign for re-electing Diane Abbott. Two problems with this billboard. One, The 9 people pictured on the billboard including Diane Abbott are all black (so much for the promotion of diversity and multiculturalism by the Labour Party). Two, the quote on the billboard, “Labour will put BLACK AND ETHNIC FAMILIES FIRST to preserve a diverse nation”. The 9 only black people on the billboard goes completely against the diversity of British people that ethnic minorities, such as Diane Abbott, are known for stressing the importance of. Utter hypocrite! Of course Diane Abbott would argue that this such billboard is only being used in order to appeal to the electorate in Hackney, seen as 65% of people living in Hackney are black or of ethnic minority. However imagine if Gavin Felton, UKIP candidate for Barnsley, campaigned with a billboard picturing 9 white only people. It would get absolutely slaughtered by the left-wing media and liberals on social media. This despite 98% of people living in Barnsley being white. He’d only be appealing to the electorate.

The third highlight of Diane Abbott’s joke of a political career I would like to raise, again concerns her actions on twitter. I’d just like to say that after studying politics for 6 years, this was the first time a politician has actually made me angry with what he/she has said. This issue concerns the three recent terror attacks in Manchester, London Bridge and Finsbury Park; two of those terror attacks carried out by Islamic extremists and one by an Islamophobic extremist. When Abbott took to twitter after the terror attacks by Islamic extremists in Manchester and London Bridge, she highlighted both terror attacks merely as ‘incidents’. However she outlined the attack by an Islamophobic extremist in Finsbury Pack as an actual ‘terrorist attack’. Why were the two attacks in Manchester and London Bridge only ‘incidents’ and the attack in Finsbury Park an actual ‘terrorist attack’ Diane Abbott? I’d like you to imagine a white politician of a right-wing political party, perhaps known for being against immigration, highlighting the attacks in Manchester and London Bridge as ‘terrorist attacks’ but the attack in Finsbury Park merely an ‘incident’. Again, he/she would get absolutely slaughtered by left-wing media and liberals on social media.

Of course I emailed Abbott a few days prior to writing this article to give her the chance to explain why she differentiated the three terrorist attacks. As you might have expected, she didn’t reply!

As you could imagine, the race related controversies seen from Diane Abbot would have been criticised more if it was the other way round with a white politician. Diane Abbott has benefited an incredible amount throughout her political career from the fact that she is black. Ironic that. I am not saying that she gets away with everything, she has often been seen apologising for her actions. But a white politician in her shoes would have been sent to the job centre a very long time ago. It is not only race related issues concerning Diane Abbott’s laughable career, but other mishaps seen from her, for example the hypocrisy seen when she criticised colleagues Tony Bliar and Harriet Harman for sending their kids to private schools. She later sent her own son to a private school. And of course the car crash interview just last month when Abbot got her figures all wrong, her excuse being that she’d been busy and stressed with 6 interviews already that morning (I’d expect her to successfully complete a 1000 interviews in a morning with the money that she earns). This of course led to her stepping down from the shadow cabinet a couple of days later.

I’m surprised a politician prone to controversy like her is able to hold a position as high as on the shadow cabinet in parliament (she’s now returned to the shadow cabinet). Anyone would think that she and her leader Jeremy Corbyn had a special connection like some sort of previous sexual history.

Oh hang on a minute…

To summarise, the ironic fact is the only reason Diane Abbott has not been forced to resign from her numerous positions in parliament is because she is a black female. Political correctness has gone mad, and the essential need to not offend and give priority to the social minorities is wrong, proven by the fact that Diane Abbott gets away with everything that she says and does.